Knowing poverty

:Critical reflections on participatory research and policy. Brock, Karen & McGee, Rosemary (Eds.). (2002). London: Earthscan Publications.

Introduction (Karen Brock, 1-13)
Brock observed that PR as a poverty assessment method has been accepted in dominant institution, yet methodological credibility (validity), representation, and applicability have been in debate. Alongside, PR has been criticized within. Brock focused on the process of "decontextualizing local people's knowledge"(p. 9), which questions which voices are included and excluded as local knowledge. Pointing out Chambers's chapter, Brock also noted the dilemmas and choices a researcher faces in analyzing data. Drawing on methodological, epistemological, and ethical dilemmas, Chambers argued for the necessity of reflexivity: "the process of reflecting critically on the part one plays as a researcher in the formation, framing and construction of knowledge" (p. 9).

Brock's epistemological stance is interesting to note: Knowledge in PR is inseparable from the concept of action. She wrote:

"In participatory research, knowledge is not produced for its own sake, but is seen as being embedded in processes of social change or problem solving, inseparable from the idea of action." (p. 9)

Brock sharply noted that PR is a "process of reflection, learning, and action, producing the development of a critical consciousness" (p. 10). [This model of cycle is different from that of action research--plan, action, observe...--It is more internal and fundamental, happening at the level of consciousness. Thus, I do think that the discourse of action research is distinguished from that of participatory research. Here, action is not immediate, more about influencing policy.]

Brock introduces other topics: how policy-makers learn and change? What is a local perspective on consciousness? What are the policy implications of participatory research?

Power, knowledge and policy influence: Reflections on an experience (Robert Chambers, 133-165)

In his experience, Chambers drew attention to power and knowledge. He stated that power distorts realities and frames the realities of others. In particular, he wrote:

"Researchers had power to determine how open or closed the process was. Knowledge was formed iteratively through interactions of researchers' and participants' priorities, concepts, frames, realities and patterns of analysis and representation. Academic values and practices in part conflicted with the ethics of policy influence. (p. 136)

Because of this very reason, Chambers argued for researchers' reflexivity.